If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm sorry, science hasn't determined when the Angels were created....the bible is obviously way ahead of us on mythical creatures.

In what order were the dragons and unicorns created?

Ahem, you said the Bible said the earth was created before anything else.

I objected and showed that the Bible actually shows the angels were created before the earth.

Since the subject was what the Bible says about creation, science doesn't enter into it. Whether the Angels are mythical or not doesn't alter the fact the Bible shows they were created before the earth.

[4] everything in the universe has existed for something like 6-10,000 years,

[5] bats are birds.

[6] Unicorns are real,

[7] dragons (fiery serpents) are real,

[8] giants were real,

[9] rabbits chew their cud and are thus unclean,

[10] All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 animals per second! onto that 450 foot long boat!,

[11] birds and whales appeared before reptiles and insects,

[12] flowering plants appeared before any animals (plants thrived even before the sun existed!),

[13] Adam personally named several million species (that must have taken awhile, even just for the 500,000 species of beetles!),

[14] you can rid your house of leprosy by sacrificing a certain bird and dripping its blood on your house,

[15] you can easily tell if a woman is an adultress: The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed,

[16] and the Earth was formed before the Sun, but depending entirely on what part you chose to believe: The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day?

What I said was the Bible is not a science textbook, however it’s simple narrative is always scientifically correct. You then gave me a list of items that you apparently believe prove the Bible narrative false. I’ve numbered your list for convenience, so it will be easier to talk about.

I’ve been interested in the Bible and what it says since I was about 5 years old. (I’m 69) Along the way I’ve collected over 20 hard copies of various English translations of the Bible, along with Bible dictionary’s, concordances, interlinear translations, maps, indexes, etc. So I know a lot about what the Bible says and about what it doesn’t say.

Nowadays the Internet makes information on a given subject easier to find, but that’s a two edged sword. You have to know your subject to be able to separate the truth from the flack. Most people don’t know what the Bible says so they have no idea if what someone, or some site says about the Bible is true or not, yet they repeat it.

Your’s is a typical Internet list.

[1] the Earth really is flat.
Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the Bible shows the word flat appearing in the King James Bible exactly 4 times. None of those 4 scriptures say the earth is flat.

Having answered a similar list of questions about the Bible, I believe you are referring to Revelation 7:1. Which says, “After this I saw four angels standing upon the four corners of the earth, holding tight the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow upon the earth or upon the sea or upon any tree.

Their understanding was that if the earth had four corners it would have to be flat. However, I heard that phrase growing up and all it means is the whole earth. Goggling it brings up several sites that confirm what I’ve just related.

[2] the earth really is at the center of the universe.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I'll need to know the chapter and verse where it says this.

[3] the sky (firmament) forms a "roof" over the world.
This one I believe I've researched before but I don't remember what scripture was being referenced, so I need chapter and verse again.

[4] everything in the universe has existed for something like 6-10,000 years
How is the Bible scientifically wrong about this when nowhere does the Bible even mention the age of the universe? This is the belief of certain religions that believe the days of creation were all 24 hours long, however the Bible actually shows the days, or creative periods, were much longer.

[5] bats are birds.
This is one I recently looked into. The Bible books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy both give lists of clean and unclean things the Israelites could eat, or were prohibited from eating.

The King James translation of the Bible at Leviticus 11:13-19 says, “ And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; 16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Other Bible translations instead of using the word fowls use the word birds. The (CJB) Bible says this at verse 13, “The following creatures of the air are to be detestable for you — they are not to be eaten, they are a detestable thing: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey . . . “ It too lists the bat last.

The Voice translation of the Bible says at verse 13, Also among the creatures of the air, there are some you should detest as well. Do not eat the eagle, the bearded vulture, or the black vulture, . . .etc. It too lists the bat last.

The New World translation of the Bible says at verse 13, “And these are what you will loath among the flying creatures . . .” It then goes on to list the same birds as the other Bibles as well as listing the bat last.

So instead of the Bible listing bats as birds the Bible is actually listing flying creatures that are not to be eaten.

[6] Unicorns are real.
Nine times the Scriptures refer to an animal by the Hebrew term reʼem. Translators were uncertain as to what animal was meant.

Most scholars believe the image of the unicorn was derived from hearsay European accounts of the rhinoceros.” (The World Book Encyclopedia) Thus the King James, Douay, and other Bible translations translated re’em as unicorn.

The New Encyclopædia Britannica explains: “Certain poetical passages of the Old Testament refer to a strong and splendid horned animal called reʼem. This word is translated ‘unicorn’ or ‘rhinoceros’ in many versions, but modern translations prefer ‘wild ox’, which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew reʼem.”

So the original language scriptures of the Bible don’t say there are unicorns. It’s apparently just some Bible translators that guessed this was the hearsay animal and guessed wrong. One early Bible translator when not knowing what animal the word re’em referred to just didn’t translate the word, leaving it saying re’em. That’s way better than guessing.

The Following User Says Thank You to Kstat For This Useful Post:

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

According to the Bible, the proper punishment for a rapist is to 1) require him to marry the girl that he raped, and 2) require him to make a payment in silver to her father.

Both of these punishments only apply if she was a virgin. Presumably if she were not a virgin at the time of the rape then a much lesser penalty would apply.

Does that seem right? Is that what you want to happen in the Cleveland rapist-kidnapper case?

Personally, while I think the Bible has some wonderful stories and good moral messages, I am not blinded to the fact that it is a collection of tales written by at least partially flawed men who got a lot of the details very very wrong, scientific and otherwise. That doesn't make them bad people, bad writers, or make the entire collection worthless, it merely shows that the writers were flawed, like all humans that ever lived have been.

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-16-2013 at 09:28 AM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

The bible is not a science textbook and should be ignored...unless there's something in there that makes sense, and then it's coming straight from god.
The bible is always scientifically correct....unless it isn't, and then we stretch excuses from here to the moon.
This is what we call "rainmaking."

Where did you get your definition of rainmaking?

That aside, you've made your opinion quite clear, that the Bible should be ignored, it doesn't make sense, etc.

However, I've given evidence that it does make sense when it's narrative is presented correctly. For example, how many people reading this thread knew the creation account only makes sense when it's known the writer Moses was writing the account from the position of an observer on the surface of the earth?

However, instead of admitting what I've presented has any validly, you keep repeating your refrain the Bible should be ignored.

My question is why should people ignore the Bible just because others that don't read it, and thus don't understand it, berate it?

I have read it and I do read it, and I very much believe it! I’ve read most of the disparaging things said about the Bible and I still believe it. Why? Because I actually research what is being said.

Why is the Bible so universally panned nowadays? Several reasons, one being that instead of reading the Bible and seeing what it says for themselves people often go to the Internet to check things out. However, does the Internet give a balanced view of anything?

Site’s that disparage the Bible give lists like the one presented in this thread, but do they remove things from their lists when proven not true? I’ll give you an example. One guy didn’t believe the Bible’s account because the Israelites carried an ark across a river. He thought the Bible account was talking about Noah's Ark, not knowing that what was actually carried was the Ark of the covenant, a small chest containing the ten commandments. If they would actually remove such nonsense, their list of complaints would quickly diminish.

How about religious sites on the Internet? Good luck with that! Wikipedia says there are over 41,000 Christian denominations. The Bible shows Christ Jesus started (1) one. The only way you can make your way though that mess is to know what the Bible actually says. So again it comes down to actually reading the Bible. Then when you come to something you don’t understand you need to research the subject.

You might reply, why read the Bible, who cares how we got here, we’re here?

I could give many reasons, but the Bible says God is willing to give everlasting life to those who put faith in him. You show that faith by reading what the Bible says to do and then apply it in your life.

There’s more, but one of the basics is just being caring/nice/good to other people.
Is that hard to do?

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

That aside, you've made your opinion quite clear, that the Bible should be ignored, it doesn't make sense, etc.

However, I've given evidence that it does make sense when it's narrative is presented correctly. For example, how many people reading this thread knew the creation account only makes sense when it's known the writer Moses was writing the account from the position of an observer on the surface of the earth?

However, instead of admitting what I've presented has any validly, you keep repeating your refrain the Bible should be ignored.

My question is why should people ignore the Bible just because others that don't read it, and thus don't understand it, berate it?

I have read it and I do read it, and I very much believe it! I’ve read most of the disparaging things said about the Bible and I still believe it. Why? Because I actually research what is being said.

Why is the Bible so universally panned nowadays? Several reasons, one being that instead of reading the Bible and seeing what it says for themselves people often go to the Internet to check things out. However, does the Internet give a balanced view of anything?

Site’s that disparage the Bible give lists like the one presented in this thread, but do they remove things from their lists when proven not true? I’ll give you an example. One guy didn’t believe the Bible’s account because the Israelites carried an ark across a river. He thought the Bible account was talking about Noah's Ark, not knowing that what was actually carried was the Ark of the covenant, a small chest containing the ten commandments. If they would actually remove such nonsense, their list of complaints would quickly diminish.

How about religious sites on the Internet? Good luck with that! Wikipedia says there are over 41,000 Christian denominations. The Bible shows Christ Jesus started (1) one. The only way you can make your way though that mess is to know what the Bible actually says. So again it comes down to actually reading the Bible. Then when you come to something you don’t understand you need to research the subject.

You might reply, why read the Bible, who cares how we got here, we’re here?

I could give many reasons, but the Bible says God is willing to give everlasting life to those who put faith in him. You show that faith by reading what the Bible says to do and then apply it in your life.

There’s more, but one of the basics is just being caring/nice/good to other people.
Is that hard to do?

It is impossible to argue with a religious or a sports fanatic. The Bible is written so that it can be interpreted in many ways. Much of what it says was based on earlier religions. Yes, this book is accurate all right. Would you rather believe in scientific facts or that a man was the son of God, died and rose from the dead in three days. Yeah, like that really happened. There is more violence and sexual depravity in the Bible than any other book I know. If it were written today, people would want to ban children from reading it. How about Lot being seduced by his daughters after his wife was turned to a pillar of salt. Why don't any of these things happen any more? There is no science in the Bible and just about everything is wrong. But you can bend the ambiguous writing to say about anything you want.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

I have certainly never said that the Bible should be ignored or that it doesn't make any sense. I think it has many fine examples on how to live a good life.

I am absolutely saying that every word and every statement within it should not be taken as scientific fact.

It should be recognized as at least a partially flawed recounting of history and life as they knew it, that was written by many men, people who felt they were divinely inspired but that had limited educations by modern standards and were subject to views that reflected the prejudices of the day. These prejudices included, among many other things for many of the authors, an attitude that women were inherently inferior beings, that slavery was not an inherently evil institution, and that one should accept legends and superstition, without question, as the best means of explaining the natural world rather than to apply what we now call the scientific method.

The belief in an infallible Bible that someone can interpret with 100% precision has long been justified to condemn or "reign in" the musings of Copernicus, Gallileo, da Vinci, Newton, and others. It's been used to justify slavery, to keep women from voting, to keep blacks from marrying whites, to keep gays from marrying, and so on. The infallible word interpreted with 100% precision then seems to be interpreted completely differently at some point, when people come to grips with the prejudices of their society.

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-16-2013 at 02:28 PM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

I've had similar conversations before. When God kills innocent people/children, it's okay because it was God's will. Apparently.

God promised to give Abraham’s seed, the land “from the river of Egypt to . . . the river Euphrates.”

While the Israelites were in Egypt other peoples moved into this promised land. People that served other God's and sacrificed their own children. Rather than have the Israelites get contaminated he had the interlopers destroyed.

One thing we have to remember about this, it's the creator of people doing the judging of people. And he didn't destroy those who changed there ways and joined the Israelites. (See the account of Rahab in the Bible at Joshua, chapters 2-6)

And he didn't destroy those that moved to other lands. Since God holds people directly responsible for their children, those people’s children died because they didn’t see fit to move. Consequently they were responsible for their children’s death, not God.

Another point. Before the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed Abraham asked a question of God that deals pretty much with our subject matter. It sounds pretty much like what Hicks would ask.

Genesis 18, 25-33 says, "It is unthinkable of you that you are acting in this manner to put to death the righteous man with the wicked one so that it has to occur with the righteous man as it does with the wicked! It is unthinkable of you. Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?”

26 Then Jehovah said: “If I shall find in Sodom fifty righteous men in the midst of the city I will pardon the whole place on their account.” 27 But Abraham went on to answer and say: “Please, here I have taken upon myself to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the fifty righteous should be lacking five. Will you for the five bring the whole city to ruin?” To this he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin if I find there forty-five."

29 But yet again he spoke further to him and said: “Suppose forty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not do it on account of the forty.” 30 But he continued: “May Jehovah, please, not grow hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose thirty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 But he continued on: “Please, here I have taken upon myself to speak to Jehovah: Suppose twenty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the twenty.” 32Finally he said: “May Jehovah, please, not grow hot with anger, but let me speak just this once: Suppose ten are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten.” 33 Then Jehovah went his way when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.

So what happened? God had 4 people brought out of Sodom before it was destroyed. God doesn't destroy good people along with bad.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

God promised to give Abraham’s seed, the land “from the river of Egypt to . . . the river Euphrates.”

While the Israelites were in Egypt other peoples moved into this promised land. People that served other God's and sacrificed their own children. Rather than have the Israelites get contaminated he had the interlopers destroyed.

One thing we have to remember about this, it's the creator of people doing the judging of people. And he didn't destroy those who changed there ways and joined the Israelites. (See the account of Rahab in the Bible at Joshua, chapters 2-6)

And he didn't destroy those that moved to other lands. Since God holds people directly responsible for their children, those people’s children died because they didn’t see fit to move. Consequently they were responsible for their children’s death, not God.

Another point. Before the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed Abraham asked a question of God that deals pretty much with our subject matter. It sounds pretty much like what Hicks would ask.

Genesis 18, 25-33 says, "It is unthinkable of you that you are acting in this manner to put to death the righteous man with the wicked one so that it has to occur with the righteous man as it does with the wicked! It is unthinkable of you. Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?”

26 Then Jehovah said: “If I shall find in Sodom fifty righteous men in the midst of the city I will pardon the whole place on their account.” 27 But Abraham went on to answer and say: “Please, here I have taken upon myself to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the fifty righteous should be lacking five. Will you for the five bring the whole city to ruin?” To this he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin if I find there forty-five."

29 But yet again he spoke further to him and said: “Suppose forty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not do it on account of the forty.” 30 But he continued: “May Jehovah, please, not grow hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose thirty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 But he continued on: “Please, here I have taken upon myself to speak to Jehovah: Suppose twenty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the twenty.” 32Finally he said: “May Jehovah, please, not grow hot with anger, but let me speak just this once: Suppose ten are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten.” 33 Then Jehovah went his way when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.

So what happened? God had 4 people brought out of Sodom before it was destroyed. God doesn't destroy good people along with bad.

Good people? Do you mean Lot's daughters who seduced their father? What was good about that? Do you really believe Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt? When do you come to the conclusion that this is all a big fairy tale?

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

When do you accept the story of a fish developing legs and becoming a man (yeah I left out alot of steps)....when do you accept that as a fairy tale? When do you accept that it is not a scientific fact but it too is a creation myth?

If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

When do you accept the story of a fish developing legs and becoming a man (yeah I left out alot of steps)....when do you accept that as a fairy tale? When do you accept that it is not a scientific fact but it too is a creation myth?

When facts back up one story and not the other.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

When do you accept the story of a fish developing legs and becoming a man (yeah I left out alot of steps)....when do you accept that as a fairy tale? When do you accept that it is not a scientific fact but it too is a creation myth?

Because there is a fossil record of that happening. There is evidence. The fish didn't become a man. It evolved into other species that eventually evolved into man. Darwin predicted it and the fossil record backs it up. Dinosaurs became today's birds. It is in the fossil record if you will do some research....

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

To some, "facts" seem to be considered to be valid or invalid valid only based on their ability to pass through the hurdle of being in agreement with a set of books written by men 1,900 or so years ago.

I see no reason to apply such a filter.

We have already discarded a great many of the ideas that at one point in time were rejected because they failed that hurdle, according to the leading interpreters of that set of books at the time. We woke up and decided to no longer jail persons who thought the Earth revolves around the sun. We decided to no longer allow the enslavement of people. We decided to allow women to actually speak in public, to own land, and even to allow them to vote!

So Church leaders say "The Bible says A is true so we will never stand for B, not matter what! No compromise!"
Then a generation later, church leaders say "Our bad, the Bible really says that B is OK"

Doesn't the long history of these lines in the sand, eventually abandoned, make you question the wisdom about continuing to insist on such arbitrary attitudes?

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-17-2013 at 08:54 AM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

The Following User Says Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

And Scientist insisted that the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, that it was impossible to travel faster than sound or to the moon...doesn't their changing attitudes prove worrisome to you?

Now look, I'm a microbiologist by training (with a minor in Geology) and 40 years practical science experience. I know what the fossil records indicate and I also know that I have no problem with SOME evolution. I also know that I resent the putdownish attitude some posts exhibit. People are entitled to their beliefs.

As a matter of arguement, Will Galen has offered specific examples from his readings to back up what he believes. I have yet seen any of the science believers offering similar documentation for the science they accept as fact. It is said "well science has proven" or some similar. Prove what you are saying. Show us the science and expain it to us. Some are speaking as if they understand the science when all they are doing is spouting what they believe science is telling them.
One thing PD has always demanded..........LINK.

Last edited by indygeezer; 05-17-2013 at 10:32 AM.

If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

And Scientist insisted that the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, that it was impossible to travel faster than sound or to the moon...doesn't their changing attitudes prove worrisome to you?

No, because they changed their opinion based on generating and acquiring new data after carefully designing new experiments. They did not change their thoughts because they read some old books or because some wise-looking man insisted that they should do so.

People are entitled to their beliefs.

Of course. They should not, however, give fake reasons for having those beliefs. It's OK to say "I believe X because my faith tells me that I must believe it."

It's not OK to say "I believe X because the scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms what my faith tells me must be true" when you have not looked for such evidence.

I have yet seen any of the science believers offering similar documentation for the science they accept as fact.

I have certainly tried, as in with the examples of the whales having embryonic legs, having actual humerous, ulna, radius, metacarpals, and carpals within their modified hands that we call flippers, etc.

I will try harder. Entire textbooks are really needed to explain it well, though.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Because there is a fossil record of that happening. There is evidence. The fish didn't become a man. It evolved into other species that eventually evolved into man. Darwin predicted it and the fossil record backs it up. Dinosaurs became today's birds. It is in the fossil record if you will do some research....

It's a fairly well-known fact that the fossil record has never supported Darwin's idea. Early on this was credited to an incomplete fossil record; the fossils would fit Darwin's theory just as soon as we found them.

Unfortunately, the exact opposite has happened. The more complete the fossil record becomes, the more obvious it becomes that Darwin's ideas -- and any sort of gradualistic view of development -- is wrong.

If you really want to watch a Darwinist sweat bullets, bring up the Cambrian explosion. I don't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head, but I believe 20+ of the 35 known animal phyla first appear in the Cambrian. This means roughly 60% of life's major development took place in a fraction of a single percent of life's entire history on Earth. If life is 4.3-billion-years old, and the Cambrian explosion represents 5-10-million-years (it could be even lower), that would equal 0.12-0.24% of life's entire history on Earth.

This takes a big, stinky, steamy dump all over the notion that life evolves gradually, in a Darwinism-like step-by-step, micro-accumulating-to-macro fashion. Life develops in a much more abrupt fashion. The question is: How (or "Why," if you're not afraid of those type of questions)?

Of course, there are some people, people who badly want Darwinian evolution to be true, who exaggerate their claims, and try desperately to fit the evidence to the theory (backwards science), including to the point of making up stories about how life developed. These people's imaginations do not equal valid evidence. Call them out on their bluffs.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

It's a fairly well-known fact that the fossil record has never supported Darwin's idea. Early on this was credited to an incomplete fossil record; the fossils would fit Darwin's theory just as soon as we found them.

Unfortunately, the exact opposite has happened. The more complete the fossil record becomes, the more obvious it becomes that Darwin's ideas -- and any sort of gradualistic view of development -- is wrong.

If you really want to watch a Darwinist sweat bullets, bring up the Cambrian explosion. I don't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head, but I believe 20+ of the 35 known animal phyla first appear in the Cambrian. This means roughly 60% of life's major development took place in a fraction of a single percent of life's entire history on Earth. If life is 4.3-billion-years old, and the Cambrian explosion represents 5-10-million-years (it could be even lower), that would equal 0.12-0.24% of life's entire history on Earth.

This takes a big, stinky, steamy dump all over the notion that life evolves gradually, in a Darwinism-like step-by-step, micro-accumulating-to-macro fashion. Life develops in a much more abrupt fashion. The question is: How (or "Why," if you're not afraid of those type of questions)?

Of course, there are some people, people who badly want Darwinian evolution to be true, who exaggerate their claims, and try desperately to fit the evidence to the theory (backwards science), including to the point of making up stories about how life developed. These people's imaginations do not equal valid evidence. Call them out on their bluffs.

That is still millions of years of evolution and changing ecosystems can make life evolve very quickly. The Galapagos Island and Madagascar are examples. The evidence is clear but the Cambrian age cannot even exist according to the Bible.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

It's a fairly well-known fact that the fossil record fully supports the overall theory of evolution.

No we do not have a complete fossil record. It takes very specific and rare geological processes to preserve fossils. But enough of them exist to tell a huge part of the story. Do you believe that the great library of Alexandra did not exist because all of the books (scrolls) in it were lost to history? Of course not. We can trace whale evolution back through at least 10 pre-whale mammals species, back through much of the 50 million years since they diverged from a land-dwelling ancestor. Were there more than 10? Yes! Will we find them? I hope so!

Early on this was credited to an incomplete fossil record; the fossils would fit Darwin's theory just as soon as we found them.

In part that has happened. Sometimes Darwin was off in his proposed lineages or proposed time frames, and the tree of life was adjusted with the aid of this new data. As an example, when the movie Jurassic park was made, some of the dinos were shown with feathers because it was a new idea. Now that has been so much supported that if the movie were re-made today, every one of those dinos would be shown (properly, we think) COVERED in feathers!

The more complete the fossil record becomes, the more obvious it becomes that Darwin's overall idea was completely correct! Darwin didn't quite realize that catacalysimic events have actually been common in geological time, thus he didn't model the extent to which evolution would be very sudden. Now we know better, and such new info had contributed greatly to modern views of evolution. It is typically a gradual process requiring the millions of years, that we have fortunately had, but sometimes strong pressures greatly accelerate the process.

The Cambrian explosion, for example, was an era of immense population change, and is well-modeled by current evolutionary models.

Evolutionists have know for decades that the step-by-step, micro-to-macro evolution is complemented by evolution occurring in a much more abrupt fashion. Darwin himself noted this possibility, in that Galapogos evoution, and island formation in general, is tied to volcanic processes which abruptly change habitats, causing both mass extinctions and massive rates of adaptations. He didn't realize how common it was, though, that much of life's history was studded even with periods of heavy cosmic bombardment.

Of course, there are some people who ignore facts, ignore science, and spout utter nonsense.

They commonly have several prefferred names- intelligent designers, creationists. They are often well-minded and good-intentioned, but please try to see through their bull-crap.

Call them out on their idiocy.

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-17-2013 at 02:56 PM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share on twitterShare on emailShare on printShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponMore Sharing ServicesThe controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others.

People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.
Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.

Chronological Reading

According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days.

Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.

That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

The Topical Reading

This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment.

On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.

Real History

The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

Science and Religion

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

.

Last edited by indygeezer; 05-17-2013 at 03:00 PM.

If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is "more than just a hypothesis" and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith.

In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin and others first proposed it in the 19th Century. The academy, a body of scientific experts, advises the church on scientific matters.

It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge," the pope said in his message Wednesday. "The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
The church's previous position on evolution was established in a 1950 encyclical, issued by Pope Pius XII. This statement, Humani Generis, raised no objections to discussions of evolution and said it was not incompatible with Christian teachings, but warned that the theory played into the hands of communists eager to eliminate God.

The pope's message went much further in accepting the theory of evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life on Earth, with one major exception: the human soul.

"If the human body has its origin in living material which pre-exists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God," the pope said.

Most mainstream Christian denominations take similar positions on evolution, said Martin E. Marty, who teaches the history of modern Christianity at the University of Chicago. "The Bible can't be comprehended as a textbook on how the world and human life began," he said. "I think you have to look at the world in more than one way. The important thing for all theists is that humans are related to nature. That's why I think this (statement) has a lot more weight to it: You can keep the distinctiveness of the human as the image of God, and still see the human as part of this billions-yearlong process."

Although the pope's message may seem more a matter of nuance to some lay observers, Italian newspapers treated it like a bombshell. "Pope says we may descend from monkeys," screamed the front-page headline on the conservative newspaper Il Giornale."
"It is a big-deal day," Marty said. "This is a pope who engages in every kind of what I call creative foot-dragging about all these things in the late 20th Century. This (statement) suggests that it's very important to him to make his position known while there's time."

The health of the 76-year-old pontiff has been a subject of recent concern and speculation. Earlier this month, his inflamed appendix was removed, and a tremor in his left hand has led to widespread reports that he is suffering from Parkinson's disease.

By addressing his statement to a body of Catholic scientists, the pope essentially is signaling the church's acceptance of research into the evolutionary origins of life. But it also appeared aimed at the U.S., where evolution and creationism has progressed from a spiritual debate into a potent political issue, particularly among staunchly conservative Christian political activists.

These "creationists" have renewed their efforts recently to seek the mandatory teaching of creationism instead of evolution in public schools, especially in the South and West.

In Tennessee, where teacher John Scopes was fined $100 for teaching evolution and became the subject of the famous 1925 Monkey Trial, the state legislature this year narrowly voted down a bill that would have banned teaching the theory of evolution as fact. Because most creationists belong to branches of Protestant denominations, the pope's position will have little impact on their efforts.

Nor does the pope's statement portend major changes in how Catholic schools handle the subject. The 138,000 students in the Chicago archdiocese's elementary and secondary schools already learn about evolution in science classes and the biblical account of the creation of the world in religion and theology classes.

The debate it seems is really NOT a debate between atheists and Christians, it is a debate between fundamentalists American Evangelicals and the vast majority of Christians world-wide who accept biological evolution as a fundamental principle of science.

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-17-2013 at 03:15 PM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)